The Indian Evidence Act Questions 61 to 80 (3 Marks)

Q61. What is Plea of alibi?

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is expounded with the Plea of Alibi. It is the plea of absence of person, charged with an offence, from the place of occurrence at the time of the commission of the offence is named as plea of alibi. The term “Alibi “is a Latin word which implies – elsewhere or some another place. In criminal law this plea is employed by accused against the commission of an alleged offence. When the accused pleads the alibi in court of law, he or she attempts to prove that he or she is elsewhere else at the time when the offence is committed. In other words, it simply tells us that the accused wasn’t physically present at the crime scene. It’s basic law that in criminal case, the burden is on the accused to prove that the he was not present at the scene and has not participated within the crime (Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872). So as to ascertain the plea of alibi the accused must lead evidence to indicate that he was too far off at the instant of the crime from the place of occurrence that he couldn’t have committed the offence

Q62.When fact not otherwise relevant becomes relevant?

Section 3, Interpretation Clause of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines this term as “One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.”

Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with facts which ordinarily have nothing to do with that of a case are not in themself, but they have become to the relevant only by virtue of fact that they are either inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact or they make the existence of a fact in issue or relevant fact either highly probable or improbable.

According to Section 11 of the Evidence Act,Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-

(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.

This section enables a person charged with a crime to take what is commonly called the plea of alibi which means his presence elsewhere at the time of crime. Evidence can be given of every fact which by itself or in connection with other facts makes the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. This section is too wide in its import. It does not place any restriction upon the range of facts that can be admitted as showing inconsistencies or probabilities. It leaves the whole thing at the discretion of the court.

Q63. What is Admission? Who can make Admission?

Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines the term “Admission” as: “An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned in the Act.

Admission in the Evidence Act is nothing but a piece of evidence. Admissions dealt with in the Indian Evidence Act in Section 17 to 23 and 31 or different from Judicial Admissions.

Sections 18 to 20 of the Act lays down the provisions relating to persons to make admissions. An admission is relevant. if it is made by

A party to the proceeding (Civil or Criminal);
An agent authorized by such party;
A Party suing or being sued in a representative character making admission while holding such character,
A person who has a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest
A person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest,
A person whose position is it necessary to prove in a suit, if such statements would be relevant in a suit brought by or against himself,
A person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute.

Q64. Who can do retraction of Admission?

Confessions are merely a species of admission which is defined under Section 17 of the Act. Retraction may be defined as the act of recanting. Which means withdrawing or renouncing prior statements formally.Thus,Retracted admission is a statement made by an accused person before the trial begins by which he admits to have committed the offence but which he repudiates/retracts at the trial.

That is, when a person was having once recorded a confession which is otherwise relevant, subsequently goes back upon it saying either that he never confessed or that he wrongly confessed is called a retracted confession. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 guarantees protection against the compulsion to be a witness against oneself.

The person who is best suited to state on facts can do retraction of admission.

Q65. Write note on “Admissibility of Confession made to Police”.

Confessions are merely a species of admission which is defined under Section 17 of the Act. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 guarantees protection against the compulsion to be a witness against oneself.

According to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. According to Section 26 of the Act, no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.

The rule of total exclusion of custodial confession from evidence, as enacted under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act on the face of it, shows a serious concern of legislature for protection against police brutality, of the right of an accused person not to be compelled incriminate himself.

In Ram Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 Cr LJ 3763 (Bom), the court held that any confessional statement given by accused before police is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be brought on record by the prosecution and is insufficient to convict the accused.

Q66. Distinguish between Public Document and Private Document.

Public Documents	Private Documents
The term “Public Document” is defined in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.	The term “Private Document” is defined in Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Public Documents are those documents which are authenticated by a public officer or also contain statements made by the public officer in their official capacity.	Private documents are those documents which are prepared between persons for their usual business transactions and communications.
They are made available to the public at large for reference and use.	They are not made available to the public at large. These documents are kept in the custody of the private persons only.
They act as admissible evidence of the fact in civil matters.	Certified copies of the private documents are generally not considered as evidence unless there is proof of the original copy is provided.
They are proved by secondary evidence.	They are proved by primary evidence.
The court is bound to presume the genuineness of a public document from the duly certified secondary copy.	No presumption is made about the genuineness of the original document from secondary evidence of private document except in some exceptional circumstances.

Q67.What are the ways of impeaching the credit of witness?

Impeaching the credit of a witness means to shake the reliability of the evidence given by the witness. It is to expose the person’s (witness’) real character and make the court believe that the witness is not reliable, and thus the court should not rely on this witness. Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the impeachment of credit of witness.

According to Section 155 of the Evidence Act the credit of the witness can be impeached by allowing independent evidence by both the parties i.e. the adverse party and the party calling the witness. The adverse party has a right to impeach the credit, whereas the party calling can only do it with the court’s permission. The section provides three ways to impeach the credit of witness:

Testimony of unworthiness: By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness believe him to be unworthy of credit;
Witness is bribed: By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
Former inconsistent statement: By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted.

Q68.Write Short Note on Examination of Witnesses

The examination of witnesses is an integral part of a criminal trial. Witness testimonies are one of the most reliable evidence because the person giving the statements has personally witnessed the event happen. Part III, Chapter X, Section 135 to Section 166 of The Indian Evidence Act Deals with the Provisions of Examination of witnesses. Section 135 deals with the order of production and examination of witnesses.

According to Section 135 of the Act, the order in which witness are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively, and in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.

There are three stages of examination of witness. Sec. 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, governs the order of examination, wherein the witness is examined in chief (Section 137 para 1), then cross-examined (Section 137 para 2) and then re-examined (if the opposition party so desires) (Section 137 para 3).

The order in which witnesses are to be produced for examination is to be decided by the party leading his evidence. However, the Court has a discretion to direct the order in which the witnesses shall be produced. Like all other discretion, it has to be unreliable. Delay in the examination of a witness does not make the evidence of such witness to be unreliable.

Q69. Explain the Principle of Estoppels with illustrations.

Part III , Chapter VIII containing Section 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 , lay down the provisions relating to the “doctrine of Estoppel” Section 115 embodies the principle of Estoppels. Estoppel is rule of evidence, by which a person is not allowed to plead the contrary of a fact or state of things, which he formally asserted as existing.

According to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

‘A’ intentionally and falsely leads ‘B’ to believe that certain land belongs to ‘A’ and thereby induces ‘B’ to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of ’A’ and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, He had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

Q70.Who can be a Witness? Mention various kind of witness.

A witness is said to be competent when there is nothing in law to prevent him from appearing in the court and giving witness. Whether a witness is competent, depends on his capacity to understand the question put to him and the capacity to give rational answer thereto.

According to Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the question put to them, or from giving rational answer to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body and mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Using this logic anybody including child, dumb person, or lunatic person who can understand question and can give rational answer can testify.

Different kinds of witness are as follows:

Prosecution witness
Defence witness
Eye witness
Expert witness
Hostile witness
Child witness
Dumb witness
Chance witness
Accomplice witness
Interested witness

Q71.What are the essential conditions for Dying Declaration?

“A dying declaration is a declaration written or verbal made by a person, as to the cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his death”. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act refers to a statement made by a person who is dead or cannot be found etc. Generally, hearsay evidence are not admissible but statement made by a person who is dead or cannot be found etc. is admissible as exception under Section 21(1).

Essential conditions of dying declaration are as follows:

It must be a statement, written or verbal
The person making statement must have died.
The statement relate to the cause of his death or the circumstances of the transaction which related in his death and not the cause of the death of someone else.
The cause of the person’s death must be in question.
The person making statement must be in a fit condition to make the statement.
The statement must be competent
Declaration must be competent

Q72.Explain Primary and Secondary Evidence with illustrations

Documentary Evidences are of two kinds – Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence.

Primary Evidence:

Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines the term ‘primary evidence’. According to Section 62 of the Act, primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court”. Primary evidence is original or from the main source. Prior notice is not required to be served to produce it before the Court. The primary evidence is by itself admissible to the Court. It is always better to provide primary evidence to the court. It may be original property papers, original will, any accounts file, or any other such document.

Secondary Evidence:

Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines the term ‘secondary evidence’. According to Section 63 of the Act, secondary evidence means inferior or substituted evidence which itself indicates the existence of more original source of information. Secondary evidence may be given in the absence of the (better) primary evidence if proper explanation is given for such absence. Section 65 of the Evidence Act provides for circumstances in which secondary evidence is admissible. According to Section 63 copies made and compared with the originals, or Photostat copies may be treated as secondary evidence.

Q73.Define Evidence. Mention various type of Evidence.

Section 3, Interpretation Clause of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines the term “Evidence”. “Evidence” means and includes—

all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;
all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.

Evidence in its relation to law includes all the legal means exclusive of mere arguments which tend to prove or disprove any fact the truth of which is submitted to judicial investigation. Court is not concerned about the method by which the evidence is obtained. Court has to decide on its admissibility.

Different types of evidence are

Direct or Primary Evidence
Indirect or Secondary Evidence
Oral Evidence
Documentary Evidence
Hearsay Evidence
Circumstantial Evidence
Real Evidence
Personal Evidence
Judicial Evidence
Non-judicial Evidence

Q74. Which Facts needs not to be proved?

Section 56 to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lay down provisions relating to facts which need not be proved..

According to Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the facts of which the Court will take judicial notice need not be proved. Thus, if the court is bound to take notice of a particular fact the parties are spared of the burden of proving that fact. For example, the court is bound to know the law of the land.

Section 57 of the Act, gives a list of facts of which court must take judicial notice. Viz: All laws in the territory of India, All public acts, etc.

Section 17 of the Act, provides “A statement, oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.” According to Section 158 of the Act, the facts admitted need not be proved. The effect of admissions has already been noted before. It is that admission does not constitute conclusive evidence of the fact admitted, though it may operate as an estoppel. Therefore, section 58 also provides that the court may in its discretion require some other proof of an admitted fact. But the discretion is that of the court. The section does not bar the court from acting on the admission itself and without requiring any further proof.

Q75. What is Confession? Who can make Confession? Mention various kind of Confession?

The term confession is nowhere defined in the Indian Evidence Act 1872, but the definition of admission under section 17 of Indian evidence Act becomes applicable to confession also. Section 17 provides “A statement, oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.”

If a statement made by a party in the civil proceeding, it is called as admission while if it is made by the party charged with the crime, in a criminal proceeding, it is called as a confession. Thus, the confession is a statement made by the person charged with a crime suggesting an inference as to any fact in issue or as to relevant fact. The inference that the statement should suggest that he is guilty of a crime. A person charged with a crime can only make confession.

kinds of confessions:

Judicial confession (Section 164 of CrPC)
Extra-Judicial Confession
Retracted Confession
Confession by co-accused: (Section 30 of the Evidence Act)

Q76. What do you understand by Circumstantial Evidence?

An example of circumstantial evidence would be, if police retrieve stolen goods from the house of a suspect, although it establishes that the suspect has stolen the good but does not necessarily establish guilt or the fact that he must have stolen the goods. Recovery of goods in the house of a suspect is a circumstantial evidence as the goods might be placed there by someone else, thus not establishing complete guilt but forming a chain of events. This would shift the burden of proof on the suspect to establish his innocence.

In Bhim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 (para 23) case, the Supreme Court has laid down principles on circumstantial evidence, which clearly shows that circumstantial evidence needs corroboration. The principles are

the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established,
the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency,
they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

Q77. What for Circumstantial evidence used in civil and criminal cases?

Evidence can be broadly divided into two sub- categories, direct and indirect circumstantial evidence. In India, the term circumstantial evidence was first used by Sir James Stephen, stating circumstantial evidence to be facts that are relevant to the other fact, whose existence can prove by the existence of other fact. Circumstantial evidence is supported by a significant amount of corroboration. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Circumstantial evidence is unrelated fact, that consider together, can be used to infer conclusion about something unknown. Information and testimony presented by party in civil or criminal case that permits conclusion that indirectly establish the existence or non-existence of a fact or event that party seeks to prove.

An example of circumstantial evidence would be, if police retrieve stolen goods from the house of a suspect, although it establishes that the suspect has stolen the good but does not necessarily establish guilt or the fact that he must have stolen the goods. Recovery of goods in the house of a suspect is circumstantial evidence as the goods might be placed there by someone else, thus not establishing complete guilt but forming a chain of events. This would shift the burden of proof on the suspect to establish his innocence.

Q78. Define Document. Explain various type of document.

Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 define the term “Document”. According to Section 3 of the Act, “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. According to section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the evidence provided to the court in the written form is called Documentary Evidence. There are two categories of documentary evidence: (a) Public Document and (b) Private Document.

Public Document: The term “Public Document” is defined in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Public Documents are those documents which are authenticated by a public officer or also contain statements made by the public officer in their official capacity. They are made available to the public at large for reference and use. They act as admissible evidence of the fact in civil matters.

Private Document: The term “Private Document” is defined in Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Private documents are those documents which are prepared between persons for their usual business transactions and communications. They are not made available to the public at large. These documents are kept in the custody of the private persons only. Certified copies of the private documents are generally not considered as evidence unless there is proof of the original copy is provided.

Q79. What is procedure for holding Identification Parade?

Identification parade is a process that is mostly used in criminal cases to identify the accused before the court. Where the Court has to know the identity of anything or any person, any fact, which establishes such identity, is relevant. The identity of person can be established by the evidence of persons, who know him. Identification parades are held either in jail or at some other place for the purpose of identifying the persons concerned in an offense or the properties, which are subject matter of an offense.

Section 9 Provides for the Identification “parade of persons”. The purpose of Identification test is to test the memory and veracity of a witness, who claims to identify an accused person, who is said to have participated in a crime.

During the course of investigation test identification parades are arranged by the police Certain persons are brought to such a place and the accused person mixed with them. In case of Property, the property recovered is mixed with some other properties / articles of similar description. Then the Magistrate or the Panch witnesses will ask the witness to identify the property in question or the accused person. Under Section 9 the evidence given by such witness is relevant.

Q80. What is leading Question? When Leading Question cannot be asked? Explain the Order of Examination Witness.

Section 141 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 defines ‘Leading Questions’ as, “Any questions suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question. Example: Is your name so and so?

Section 142 and Section 143 provides circumstances under which the leading Questions may be asked or may not be asked. According to Section 142, leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in anexamination-in-chief, or in re-examination, except with the permission of the Court.

Part III, Chapter X, Section 135 to Section 166 of The Indian Evidence Act Deals with the Provisions of Examination of witnesses. Section 135 deals with the order of production and examination of witnesses.

The order in which witnesses are to be produced for examination is to be decided by the party leading his evidence. However the Court has a discretion to direct the order in which the witnesses shall be produced. Like all other discretion, it has to be unreliable.

Indian Evidence Act Questions 1 to 20
Indian Evidence Act Questions 21 to 40
Indian Evidence Act Questions 41 to 60
Indian Evidence Act Questions 61 to 80
Indian Evidence Act Questions 81 to 100
Indian Evidence Act Questions 101 to 120
Indian Evidence Act Questions 121 to 133

Leave a Reply Cancel reply